Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.

Some more searching...

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy. A celebrated Greek canonist...¨

So in the twelfth century they considered Constans II to have been infallible when he wrote his Typos?

If Green_Umbrella's picture of things is really how things have worked in the East/Orient, why did we reject the Emperor's attempt to replace the Orthodox Bishop of the Church of Egypt, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, with Arian bishops not once but twice? (The Arians were Gregory of Cappadocia and Lucius of Alexandria, neither of which are accepted by us, whether OO or EO.) It cannot be that the Emperor would have such direct control over the church, if the church's response is that his actions are not in keeping with the faith. In other words, it is not by the office alone but by the Orthodoxy of its holder that any emperor is awarded any sort of authority (ex. Julian the Apostate). We are not now nor ever have been beholden to those who would destroy our faith even if they have all the fancy titles in the world. If the clergy supported a bad emperor, then that clergy were wrong, as the emperor was wrong. There is no office on earth that is exempt from the responsibility to preserve Orthodoxy.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

If Green_Umbrella's picture of things is really how things have worked in the East/Orient, why did we reject the Emperor's attempt to replace the Orthodox Bishop of the Church of Egypt, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, with Arian bishops not once but twice? (The Arians were Gregory of Cappadocia and Lucius of Alexandria, neither of which are accepted by us, whether OO or EO.) It cannot be that the Emperor would have such direct control over the church, if the church's response is that his actions are not in keeping with the faith. In other words, it is not by the office alone but by the Orthodoxy of its holder that any emperor is awarded any sort of authority (ex. Julian the Apostate). We are not now nor ever have been beholden to those who would destroy our faith even if they have all the fancy titles in the world. If the clergy supported a bad emperor, then that clergy were wrong, as the emperor was wrong. There is no office on earth that is exempt from the responsibility to preserve Orthodoxy.

This is not ¨my picture¨

I do not know. I am trying to find out. I do not have a picture. I am trying to get a picture if you understand what I mean.

If Green_Umbrella's picture of things is really how things have worked in the East/Orient, why did we reject the Emperor's attempt to replace the Orthodox Bishop of the Church of Egypt, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, with Arian bishops not once but twice? (The Arians were Gregory of Cappadocia and Lucius of Alexandria, neither of which are accepted by us, whether OO or EO.) It cannot be that the Emperor would have such direct control over the church, if the church's response is that his actions are not in keeping with the faith. In other words, it is not by the office alone but by the Orthodoxy of its holder that any emperor is awarded any sort of authority (ex. Julian the Apostate). We are not now nor ever have been beholden to those who would destroy our faith even if they have all the fancy titles in the world. If the clergy supported a bad emperor, then that clergy were wrong, as the emperor was wrong. There is no office on earth that is exempt from the responsibility to preserve Orthodoxy.

This is not ¨my picture¨

I do not know. I am trying to find out. I do not have a picture. I am trying to get a picture if you understand what I mean.

I will take my questions to secular historians and secular history forums. There is too much emotion invested in the questions and answers here.

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.

The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.So a person gets to pick their ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

That is in part the Solomonic Monarchy's same theological stance in Ethiopia, in fact, it developed around the time of Emperor Justinian who was quite the friend of the Ethiopian Emperor Kaleb. Legend and some historians assert that Justinian and Kaleb divided the world in half between them out of mutual recognition of each other's universal sovereignty as Christian monarchs. My personal philosophy as a Rastafari is not to worship HIM Haile Selassie as a god on earth, but as having been a Living Icon of Christ. The Emperors there were titled (by the Church no less) as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Lion of Judah, Elect of God, Light of this World (in the temporal sense), King of Zion (i.e. the Ark of the Covenant), King of Israel (i.e. the legendary inferences of Israelite bloodlines in the Ethiopian Church and political history). All of these are indeed Titles for Christ, when the Ethiopian emperors bore them as their hereditary right, it was in the premise that they were "keeping the Throne of Christ warm until His Second Coming." At more romantic times, the Ethiopian polity was essentially organized as if it were the Divine Theocracy through the Holy Spirit interacting with the Monarchy just as it did before Christ through King David. Remember that King David wouldn't even touch his enemy King Saul because he equated it with blasphemy and denying the authority and power of God (see 1 Samuel 24:6-13)

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.

The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.So a person gets to pick their ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors.

Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.

The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.So a person gets to pick their ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors.

Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.

The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.So a person gets to pick their ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors.

Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?

Unbiased refers to the fact that you've clearly made up your mind despite claiming the opposite. I don't remember ever claiming the opposite for myself.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.

The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.So a person gets to pick their ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors.

Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?

Unbiased refers to the fact that you've clearly made up your mind despite claiming the opposite. I don't remember ever claiming the opposite for myself.

I form my opinions based upon the information available to me. It is a bit rich to hear the Orthodox rant and rave about how they reject the ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility of the Pope but had no problems with it when it was given to their Emperor. So it seems they do not reject these ideas because of any real principle. But they reject these ideas because ¨their man¨ does not have them. LOL!!

I think that is called...hypocracy?

Now going back to the Council of Florence, this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

¨Scholarios was an imperial judge and lay preacher at the court of the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaeologus. He was then named a theological consultant to the general Council of Florence (1439) when the Greek Byzantine Church reluctantly consented to a union with the West in order to win military support against the advance of the Ottoman Turks.¨

That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says, not Green_Umbrella. It is what a lot of other sources say too it seems. So I can listen to all these sources or a few very emotionally invested people on a forum. I think you know who I am thinking has the truth of the matter.

Unless someone has some real, hard, new information to put forward with links for me the matter is concluded. I have no further need to respond to this issue or ad hominem.

I form my opinions based upon the information available to me. It is a bit rich to hear the Orthodox rant and rave about how they reject the ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility of the Pope but had no problems with it when it was given to their Emperor

It is a bit rich to hear the Orthodox rant and rave about how they reject the ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility of the Pope but had no problems with it when it was given to their Emperor.

The Church never accepted the idea of imperial infallibility. Never. You find canonised saints from every century of Byzantine rule who openly defied the emperors and empresses, either for theological errors, unjust rule, etc. How could we criticise the theological errors of emperors if we believed them to be infallible. It's nonsense. We don't just reject such a notion now, but it has never been accepted by the Church. Never.

Quote

So it seems they do not reject these ideas because of any real principle. But they reject these ideas because ¨their man¨ does not have them. LOL!!

LOL OMG so true!

Quote

I think that is called...hypocracy?

Were your analysis an accurate one, it would be called hypocrisy.

Quote

Now going back to the Council of Florence, this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

¨Scholarios was an imperial judge and lay preacher at the court of the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaeologus. He was then named a theological consultant to the general Council of Florence (1439) when the Greek Byzantine Church reluctantly consented to a union with the West in order to win military support against the advance of the Ottoman Turks.¨

That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says, not Green_Umbrella. It is what a lot of other sources say too it seems. So I can listen to all these sources or a few very emotionally invested people on a forum. I think you know who I am thinking has the truth of the matter.

And upon their return, these treacherous bishops were rejected by the Orthodox faithful, and the biggest opponent of the Council, St. Mark of Ephesus, was canonised as a saint of the Church for that very opposition.

Quote

In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

Seeing the co-operation between Church and state in the Christian empire - borderless and encompassing a variety of cultures and ethnicities, united by one ruler and one faith - as an icon of the heavenly kingdom does not imply imperial infallibility. We believe the bishop is the icon of Christ in the Liturgy, but would never proceed to suggest that any individual bishop was therefore infallible on that basis.

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?

For someone who is searching for answers, you sure seem quite hostile to the ones you are being given and those giving them, Green_Umbrella. This is the Orthodox faith whether you like it or not, and whether it seems sensible to you or not.

For someone who is searching for answers, you sure seem quite hostile to the ones you are being given and those giving them, Green_Umbrella. This is the Orthodox faith whether you like it or not, and whether it seems sensible to you or not.

I want links with material. I keep asking for links with information. I have not seen any links in your favor.

Anyways, this comes from Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

¨God's Regents on Earth: A Thousand Years of Byzantine Imperial Seals

For over a thousand years the Byzantine Emperor sat in his palace, ruling over the empire as God’s regent on earth. His was the ultimate authority. The emperor was the font of all law, granter of titles and offices, distributor of largess, master of the Church, commander of the army....¨

God's Regents on Earth seems a lot like the Popes position of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ does it not? I mean c'mon, let us look at reality here.

Also calling me hostile is wrong. I am not hostile at all. And let us not forget this began when I was called an anti catholic slur.

So I am asking again, give me some links supporting your position. I need a little more than you saying ¨This is the Orthodox faith whether you like it or not,¨

I want links with material. I keep asking for links with information. I have not seen any links in your favor.

Anyways, this comes from Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

¨God's Regents on Earth: A Thousand Years of Byzantine Imperial Seals

For over a thousand years the Byzantine Emperor sat in his palace, ruling over the empire as God’s regent on earth. His was the ultimate authority. The emperor was the font of all law, granter of titles and offices, distributor of largess, master of the Church, commander of the army....¨

God's Regents on Earth seems a lot like the Popes position of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ does it not? I mean c'mon, let us look at reality here.

You're telling us to look at reality. You confound political theory with religous dogma. Was the Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius considered infallible in 700? In 1200? 1453 perhaps? Is it still considered infallible by the EO? I mean, the Ecthesis is an ex cathedra pronounciation of Heraclius. You should at least find some proof that it was or is considered infallible by the EO if your theory is to hold water.

Political system in which the head of the state is also the head of the church and supreme judge in religious matters. The term is most frequently associated with the late Roman, or Byzantine, Empire. Most modern historians recognize that the legal Byzantine texts speak of interdependence between the imperial and ecclesiastical structures rather than of a unilateral dependence of the latter; historians believe also that there was nothing in the Byzantine understanding of the Christian faith that would recognize the emperor as either doctrinally infallible or invested with priestly powers. Many historical instances of direct imperial pressure on the church ended in failure . . . John Chrysostom and most other authoritative Byzantine theologians denied imperial power over the church.

I want links with material. I keep asking for links with information. I have not seen any links in your favor.

Anyways, this comes from Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

¨God's Regents on Earth: A Thousand Years of Byzantine Imperial Seals

For over a thousand years the Byzantine Emperor sat in his palace, ruling over the empire as God’s regent on earth. His was the ultimate authority. The emperor was the font of all law, granter of titles and offices, distributor of largess, master of the Church, commander of the army....¨

God's Regents on Earth seems a lot like the Popes position of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ does it not? I mean c'mon, let us look at reality here.

You're telling us to look at reality. You confound political theory with religous dogma. Was the Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius considered infallible in 700? In 1200? 1453 perhaps? Is it still considered infallible by the EO? I mean, the Ecthesis is an ex cathedra pronounciation of Heraclius. You should at least find some proof that it was or is considered infallible by the EO if your theory is to hold water.

Also calling me hostile is wrong. I am not hostile at all. And let us not forget this began when I was called an anti catholic slur.

If you don't want to be called a papist don't act like one.

How about we do not call anyone slurs at all. How would you like a person to say your ¨truth¨ seems to be full of ethnocentric bigotry with more than just a little xenophobia and antiwestern tendencies. This person might also respond to your slur by saying you have some over the top and very one sided anti-catholic rhetoric.

They might also respond to your slur by saying the Orthodox like to mention the 4th crusade and sacking of Constantinople in 1203 but they never hear them mention the Massacre of the Latins in 1182. In fact they might say it is never mentioned at all. They might tell you it is not a suprise with the facts.

They might even list a few of those facts like...

¨The Massacre of the Latins was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic or "Latin" inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in May 1182.¨

¨..the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time, was wiped out..¨

¨..4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.¨

¨The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were looted. Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.¨

So calling people religious slurs is probably not going to lead to any productive exchanges.

Green, like I said before. Those titles were political theory, not dogmatic practice. Read what Met. Ware wrote concerning it. Heck, him stating it was political theory was something you cited.

PP

¨The bishops in attendance at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command..¨

¨The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized as such by both West and East. Orthodox, Catholics, and Old Catholics unanimously recognize it.¨

History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 2 pg 469

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy.¨

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

¨The bishops in attendance at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command..¨

¨The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized as such by both West and East. Orthodox, Catholics, and Old Catholics unanimously recognize it.¨

History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 2 pg 469

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy.¨

Looks like dogma to me.

Respond to my post on the Ecthesis and my quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica.

How about we do not call anyone slurs at all. How would you like a person to say your ¨truth¨ seems to be full of ethnocentric bigotry with more than just a little xenophobia and antiwestern tendencies. This person might also respond to your slur by saying you have some over the top and very one sided anti-catholic rhetoric.

They might also respond to your slur by saying the Orthodox like to mention the 4th crusade and sacking of Constantinople in 1203 but they never hear them mention the Massacre of the Latins in 1182. In fact they might say it is never mentioned at all. They might tell you it is not a suprise with the facts.

They might even list a few of those facts like...

¨The Massacre of the Latins was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic or "Latin" inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in May 1182.¨

¨..the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time, was wiped out..¨

¨..4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.¨

¨The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were looted. Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.¨

"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:37)

How about we do not call anyone slurs at all. How would you like a person to say your ¨truth¨ seems to be full of ethnocentric bigotry with more than just a little xenophobia and antiwestern tendencies. This person might also respond to your slur by saying you have some over the top and very one sided anti-catholic rhetoric.

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain? In their hearts the Dutch have always known the pope was the antichrist. They secretly longed for Orthodoxy (let's pretend that Calvinism is not the farthest branch of Christianity from Orthodoxy for a second here) so revolted against the pope. And William III converted to Anglicanism which back in ye olde days was like British Orthodoxy except more murdering of monastics and priests was involved ("reclaiming autocephaly" according to NicholasMyra) and there was more pluralism and Anselmian heresy and stuff. And the father of the fatherland is William of Orange, William comes from Wilhelm, "will protect" and Christ is the great protector of our souls.

It's pretty similar to how my background as a WASP has led me to ethnic bigotry against non-Orthodox peoples.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain?

In their hearts the Dutch have always known the pope was the antichrist. They secretly longed for Orthodoxy (let's pretend that Calvinism is not the farthest branch of Christianity from Orthodoxy for a second here) so revolted against the pope. And William III converted to Anglicanism which back in ye olde days was like British Orthodoxy except more murdering of monastics and priests was involved ("reclaiming autocephaly" according to NicholasMyra) and there was more pluralism and Anselmian heresy and stuff. And the father of the fatherland is William of Orange, William comes from Wilhelm, "will protect" and Christ is the great protector of our souls.

It's pretty similar to how my background as a WASP has led me to ethnic bigotry against non-Orthodox peoples.

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.